Morality discussion continued

rombomb wrote:Say a parent values hitting his children as a form of teaching them morals. He believes its moral/good to do this. This is his opinion. Lets also say that this parent knows that some people have the opposing view that hitting children is immoral/bad. So now this person knows that there is an idea out there that contradicts his own. Should he reject that rival idea without reason (i.e. irrationally)? Or should he go find out the reasons for the rival idea? By finding out the reasons for the rival idea, he'd have the opportunity to learn that the rival idea is wrong and his right, or that the rival idea is right and his wrong.

It depends on what your subjective goals are. You can learn that something is more effective at accomplishing a goal, such as ensuring the welfare and future success of your children and reform your parenting, but your values haven't truly changed at the fundamental level as you presumably wanted the best for your child before and after. Teaching your children to be 'moral', however, is teaching them a set of opinions. Morality is 100% subjective.

http://funhsps.niceboard.org/t3502-self-confidence-and-empowerment-vs-arrogence-an-exploration

rombomb wrote:You said that "You don't need to have any evidence[/reasons] to support your opinions[/value-judgments]", but this would lead this man to never question his value judgment of hitting his children even in the face of rival ideas.

Do you agree that if someone applied your idea that he'd be closed-minded about his opinions/value-judgments? Do you agree that your idea has the same effect as being arrogant about one's opinions/value-judgments?

No matter how you parse it, your starting point is subjective. Should you ever be open to the idea that torturing your children and causing the most suffering possible is the better morality? If you tell me nobody should ever have the goal of causing the most harm and suffering possible and no evidence will persuade you on the matter, then you should never be open to changing your fundamental values.

If you decided not to hit your children any more because you decided you don't want your children to be happy and not cause harm to others. What has changed isn't your desire to do what's best for them rather than determine what is the best method to achieve these ends. The motivation has never changed. The core value has never changed.

If you're talking about what it is which is important to you [e.g., the welfare of your children and happiness of other human beings], your values, then this is a different matter. You don't need to have any evidence to support your opinions [e.g., the valuation of happiness is axiomatic/self-evident; science can't tell you whether is it correct or incorrect to value this as it is objectively neither correct nor incorrect], and you can speak quite confidently in what you think is good or motivates you [protecting your children and their future].

Your values dictate what your ends (e.g., protecting your children and preventing them doing harmful things to others) are, not the means (e.g., hitting your children to discourage particular behaviors). I would never change my values/ends/opinions on such a matter. The means are different.

"I want to live [an opinion on motivation/ends/value]; in my opinion, shooting myself in the head with a gun is a good way to continue living [an opinion on means]."

Your values can only be opinions and there's no reason why you should really change those from an objective standpoint. However, having an opinion on means, which can be examined objectively, is ill-advised.

Dreamspace wrote:

rombomb wrote:Say a parent values hitting his children as a form of teaching them morals. He believes its moral/good to do this. This is his opinion. Lets also say that this parent knows that some people have the opposing view that hitting children is immoral/bad. So now this person knows that there is an idea out there that contradicts his own. Should he reject that rival idea without reason (i.e. irrationally)? Or should he go find out the reasons for the rival idea? By finding out the reasons for the rival idea, he'd have the opportunity to learn that the rival idea is wrong and his right, or that the rival idea is right and his wrong.

It depends on what your subjective goals are.

Lets say a guy's goal is to live a better life, meaning happier, less suffering.

Dreamspace wrote:
You can learn that something is more effective at accomplishing a goal, such as ensuring the welfare and future success of your children and reform your parenting, but your values haven't truly changed at the fundamental level as you presumably wanted the best for your child before and after.

Some parents don't want the best for their children. But lets say this hypothetical guy does want the best for him. And he also wants whats good for himself too.

Dreamspace wrote:
http://funhsps.niceboard.org/t3502-self-confidence-and-empowerment-vs-arrogence-an-exploration

rombomb wrote:You said that "You don't need to have any evidence[/reasons] to support your opinions[/value-judgments]", but this would lead this man to never question his value judgment of hitting his children even in the face of rival ideas.

Do you agree that if someone applied your idea that he'd be closed-minded about his opinions/value-judgments? Do you agree that your idea has the same effect as being arrogant about one's opinions/value-judgments?

No matter how you parse it, your starting point is subjective. Should you ever be open to the idea that torturing your children and causing the most suffering possible is the better morality? If you tell me nobody should ever have the goal of causing the most harm and suffering possible and no evidence will persuade you on the matter, then you should never be open to changing your fundamental values.

I don't understand how this answers my question. Could you rephrase your answer please?

Dreamspace wrote:
If you decided not to hit your children any more because you decided you don't want your children to be happy and not cause harm to others. What has changed isn't your desire to do what's best for them rather than determine what is the best method to achieve these ends. The motivation has never changed. The core value has never changed.

You're saying that values can only be about "ends" and never "means". I disagree. Values can be about either. For example, I value the "end" of learning. And I value the "means" of reading books on my kindle app on my phone because I believe that doing this helps me meet my value of learning. If you don't agree with me, then lets create a new word to identify what I'm talking about. Lets call it means-value and lets call the thing you're talking about end-value.

rombomb wrote:You said that "You don't need to have any evidence[/reasons] to support your opinions[/means-value-judgments]", but this would lead this man to never question his means-value judgment of hitting his children even in the face of rival ideas.

Do you agree that if someone applied your idea that he'd be closed-minded about his opinions/means-value-judgments? Do you agree that your idea has the same effect as being arrogant about one's opinions/means-value-judgments?